This is particularly aimed at those who do not support the death penalty, for if they disagree with me on this I think they have some internal inconsistency they might want to sort out.

Leaving war out of the question and also leaving out whether government is even legitimate, just for the moment, why does anyone in the government need lethal weapons? We have the technology to non-harmfully subdue anyone they would need to.

Also, secondary question for 2nd amendment supporters. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is often sighted as being the last hope against tyranny. Would you continue to see a use for the 2nd amendment if the government did not own firearms itself?

At 3/25/2011 3:11:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:why does anyone in the government need lethal weapons? We have the technology to non-harmfully subdue anyone they would need to.

I've been brought down by police non-harmfully before; you aren't going to be able to understand the full moral dynamic of police interactions until you have had your humanity stripped from you. I would give police rocket-launchers before I'd give them pepper spray, clubs, and tasers; the latter are just that much easier to use liberally. The more our weapons evolve and become civilized the more insidious their application becomes.

I agree with Rob that police will inevitably abuse their weapons, but that's no different than what they are already doing now so they might as well be non-fatal ones. I think it could be a good idea though people would never go for it in fear of police safety.

In response to the second part of the OP, no I don't thing guns should ever be taken away from the people. Who cares if the police don't have them? What about the army? What about those who have them illegally? No. Just the idea of that makes me ridiculously uncomfortable.

At 3/25/2011 3:11:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:This is particularly aimed at those who do not support the death penalty, for if they disagree with me on this I think they have some internal inconsistency they might want to sort out.

Leaving war out of the question and also leaving out whether government is even legitimate, just for the moment, why does anyone in the government need lethal weapons? We have the technology to non-harmfully subdue anyone they would need to.

Also, secondary question for 2nd amendment supporters. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is often sighted as being the last hope against tyranny. Would you continue to see a use for the 2nd amendment if the government did not own firearms itself?

Well, I support the DP, so I know that this isn't directed at me, but I'd like to say my two cents.

The police methods of non-lethal force is not always effective, nor fast. A police officer responding to a situation is not going to be able to carry every type of non lethal weapon in his patrol car, and in some cases, a police officer should not just sit around and wait for the big van that does have all the stuff to arrive.

At 3/25/2011 3:11:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:why does anyone in the government need lethal weapons? We have the technology to non-harmfully subdue anyone they would need to.

I've been brought down by police non-harmfully before; you aren't going to be able to understand the full moral dynamic of police interactions until you have had your humanity stripped from you. I would give police rocket-launchers before I'd give them pepper spray, clubs, and tasers; the latter are just that much easier to use liberally. The more our weapons evolve and become civilized the more insidious their application becomes.

That's a really interesting point, and i never looked at it that way before.

As for the 2nd amendment, and it's purpose. It is a direct reflection of the experience during the revolution, and a village mustering a militia for it's defense and to allow a last hope against tyranny. Although i love the sentiment it definitely seems anachronistic in our present society. I really don't know how an effective rebellion could be waged against our federal government, but i am thinking that it wouldn't be through guns. What would happen if everyone stopped paying their taxes?

At 3/25/2011 9:48:51 AM, Danielle wrote:I agree with Rob that police will inevitably abuse their weapons, but that's no different than what they are already doing now so they might as well be non-fatal ones. I think it could be a good idea though people would never go for it in fear of police safety.

But what of officers' increased ability to use said weapons on us for reasons of them being more humane? What if officers developed a way to simply press a button and instantly send pain into your mind? They'd be doing it all the time in the interests of deterring threats to themselves and not having to get their hands dirty. I got shot with a taser for refusing to sit on a curb; they wouldn't have shot me with a .38 if that's all they were carrying and it likewise would be unlikely they would have assaulted me with clubs.

Guns keep officers true. I remember watching the movie Phantasm (excellent f*cking flic BTW) and at the end the older brother is teaching the younger brother how to handle a gun. He says "warning shots are bullsh*t; don't ever point a gun at a man unless you plan to shoot him and don't ever shoot a man unless you plan on killing him." This is a line in the sand: using a weapon against a person. There should be no aiming, threatening, calling bluffs... you are either planning on killing the person or you are not. Introducing and expanding this grey area, where you're trying to threaten or slightly mame someone, is bullsh*t and only gives the police a wide opening to become thugs.

In response to the second part of the OP, no I don't thing guns should ever be taken away from the people. Who cares if the police don't have them? What about the army? What about those who have them illegally? No. Just the idea of that makes me ridiculously uncomfortable.

It's no more possible to remove weapons from the people than it is illicit drugs so I don't really concern myself with the idea too much but yes, it is appalling that the gov't would attempt to disarm the people. The Constitution puts the citizenry in charge of the army, not the other way around.

At 3/25/2011 3:11:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:why does anyone in the government need lethal weapons? We have the technology to non-harmfully subdue anyone they would need to.

I've been brought down by police non-harmfully before; you aren't going to be able to understand the full moral dynamic of police interactions until you have had your humanity stripped from you. I would give police rocket-launchers before I'd give them pepper spray, clubs, and tasers; the latter are just that much easier to use liberally. The more our weapons evolve and become civilized the more insidious their application becomes.

That's a really interesting point, and i never looked at it that way before.

As for the 2nd amendment, and it's purpose. It is a direct reflection of the experience during the revolution, and a village mustering a militia for it's defense and to allow a last hope against tyranny. Although i love the sentiment it definitely seems anachronistic in our present society. I really don't know how an effective rebellion could be waged against our federal government, but i am thinking that it wouldn't be through guns. What would happen if everyone stopped paying their taxes?

they'd begin to be thrown in jail.. and people would prolly start paying taxes again.

Revolutions get started by big actions.. Small (big) victories.

not not paying your taxes.

if ALL that happened was that the bostonians dumped the tea.. Only more law and punishment woulda happened (as it did).

when the Brits came down with harder laws... then the colonists began collecting arms..

if they didn't do that... the brits would've just kept going about enforcing their laws as they could (not All the time.. but most of the time) and people would give in so as not to run the risk of being individually 'caught' and punished in their little rebellion.

BIG moves lead to big moves... the little stuff (when it doesn't lead to Big stuff) changes Nothing.. just makes the Other side dig in more...If the little rebellions don't become Bigger too.. the popular will will be broken.. and they'll just give in.

"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."

At 3/25/2011 3:11:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:why does anyone in the government need lethal weapons? We have the technology to non-harmfully subdue anyone they would need to.

I've been brought down by police non-harmfully before; you aren't going to be able to understand the full moral dynamic of police interactions until you have had your humanity stripped from you. I would give police rocket-launchers before I'd give them pepper spray, clubs, and tasers; the latter are just that much easier to use liberally. The more our weapons evolve and become civilized the more insidious their application becomes.

That's a really interesting point, and i never looked at it that way before.

As for the 2nd amendment, and it's purpose. It is a direct reflection of the experience during the revolution, and a village mustering a militia for it's defense and to allow a last hope against tyranny. Although i love the sentiment it definitely seems anachronistic in our present society. I really don't know how an effective rebellion could be waged against our federal government, but i am thinking that it wouldn't be through guns. What would happen if everyone stopped paying their taxes?

The government would print the money it needs to keep running and try to force thsoe taxes from you. Really, to not pay your taxes is not something that an individual can really do, they need their company to be on their side, because the governemt will just garnish your wages to get the money and the only way to stop that (without quiting your job) is to have your employer tell the government that they are not going to garnish wages.

I think the real way to overthrow the government would be through winning over the police, so that when the government tells the police to do something (like arrest all those people not paying taxes), the police say no. Similar to how in Egypt, Mubarak told the police to shoot people that violated the curfew laws, and they said "F you, we're not enforcing that."

And you're definately not going to win over the police with guns, you're only going to provoke the military, which has bigger guns.

At 3/25/2011 3:11:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:why does anyone in the government need lethal weapons? We have the technology to non-harmfully subdue anyone they would need to.

I've been brought down by police non-harmfully before; you aren't going to be able to understand the full moral dynamic of police interactions until you have had your humanity stripped from you. I would give police rocket-launchers before I'd give them pepper spray, clubs, and tasers; the latter are just that much easier to use liberally. The more our weapons evolve and become civilized the more insidious their application becomes.

That's a really interesting point, and i never looked at it that way before.

As for the 2nd amendment, and it's purpose. It is a direct reflection of the experience during the revolution, and a village mustering a militia for it's defense and to allow a last hope against tyranny. Although i love the sentiment it definitely seems anachronistic in our present society. I really don't know how an effective rebellion could be waged against our federal government, but i am thinking that it wouldn't be through guns. What would happen if everyone stopped paying their taxes?

The government would print the money it needs to keep running and try to force thsoe taxes from you. Really, to not pay your taxes is not something that an individual can really do, they need their company to be on their side, because the governemt will just garnish your wages to get the money and the only way to stop that (without quiting your job) is to have your employer tell the government that they are not going to garnish wages.

I think the real way to overthrow the government would be through winning over the police, so that when the government tells the police to do something (like arrest all those people not paying taxes), the police say no. Similar to how in Egypt, Mubarak told the police to shoot people that violated the curfew laws, and they said "F you, we're not enforcing that."

And you're definately not going to win over the police with guns, you're only going to provoke the military, which has bigger guns.

I think the fact that every household has guns or has access to guns (maybe because I live in the midwest I assume everyone else has gun safes in their basement) just means if there ever was some reason to fight it would become attrition warfare. The army or police or whoever would have to cover a lot of ground kill a lot of armed people.

"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

That's a really interesting point, and i never looked at it that way before.

Most people have a serious issue of perspective when it comes to the police.

As for the 2nd amendment, and it's purpose. It is a direct reflection of the experience during the revolution, and a village mustering a militia for it's defense and to allow a last hope against tyranny. Although i love the sentiment it definitely seems anachronistic in our present society. I really don't know how an effective rebellion could be waged against our federal government, but i am thinking that it wouldn't be through guns. What would happen if everyone stopped paying their taxes?

Information spreading will be the end of our government. Instead of simply using force against the government, it can be disassembled from within.

At 3/25/2011 3:11:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:why does anyone in the government need lethal weapons? We have the technology to non-harmfully subdue anyone they would need to.

I've been brought down by police non-harmfully before; you aren't going to be able to understand the full moral dynamic of police interactions until you have had your humanity stripped from you. I would give police rocket-launchers before I'd give them pepper spray, clubs, and tasers; the latter are just that much easier to use liberally. The more our weapons evolve and become civilized the more insidious their application becomes.

That's a really interesting point, and i never looked at it that way before.

As for the 2nd amendment, and it's purpose. It is a direct reflection of the experience during the revolution, and a village mustering a militia for it's defense and to allow a last hope against tyranny. Although i love the sentiment it definitely seems anachronistic in our present society. I really don't know how an effective rebellion could be waged against our federal government, but i am thinking that it wouldn't be through guns. What would happen if everyone stopped paying their taxes?

The government would print the money it needs to keep running and try to force thsoe taxes from you. Really, to not pay your taxes is not something that an individual can really do, they need their company to be on their side, because the governemt will just garnish your wages to get the money and the only way to stop that (without quiting your job) is to have your employer tell the government that they are not going to garnish wages.

I think the real way to overthrow the government would be through winning over the police, so that when the government tells the police to do something (like arrest all those people not paying taxes), the police say no. Similar to how in Egypt, Mubarak told the police to shoot people that violated the curfew laws, and they said "F you, we're not enforcing that."

And you're definately not going to win over the police with guns, you're only going to provoke the military, which has bigger guns.

It would have to be a mass movement of non tax payers. They wouldn't have the ability to manage a nationwide tax boycott.

At 3/25/2011 12:15:11 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:Introducing and expanding this grey area, where you're trying to threaten or slightly mame someone, is bullsh*t and only gives the police a wide opening to become thugs.

I agree with you except in cases where cops would shoot instead of tase specifically because they don't have a taser. I would rather someone get tased for not sitting on a curb than shot. You're assuming that he wouldn't have shot you, and maybe that particular officer in that particular scenario would not have -- but I am more than willing to bet that this would be problematic in other cases. In fact the same logic can be turned against you. If the officers had to make a choice between killing someone or letting them go, they'd kill in more cases where they felt threatened and society would be far more inclined to accept the shooting someone in self-defense argument.

At 3/25/2011 1:13:16 PM, innomen wrote:It would have to be a mass movement of non tax payers. They wouldn't have the ability to manage a nationwide tax boycott.

Exactly; especially without people paying the police/government to lock others up. And without the funding OR space to jail all those citizens. The entire criminal justice system would fall apart, and then the rest ^_^ Sounds good to me!!!

At 3/25/2011 3:11:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:why does anyone in the government need lethal weapons? We have the technology to non-harmfully subdue anyone they would need to.

I've been brought down by police non-harmfully before; you aren't going to be able to understand the full moral dynamic of police interactions until you have had your humanity stripped from you. I would give police rocket-launchers before I'd give them pepper spray, clubs, and tasers; the latter are just that much easier to use liberally. The more our weapons evolve and become civilized the more insidious their application becomes.

That's a really interesting point, and i never looked at it that way before.

As for the 2nd amendment, and it's purpose. It is a direct reflection of the experience during the revolution, and a village mustering a militia for it's defense and to allow a last hope against tyranny. Although i love the sentiment it definitely seems anachronistic in our present society. I really don't know how an effective rebellion could be waged against our federal government, but i am thinking that it wouldn't be through guns. What would happen if everyone stopped paying their taxes?

The government would print the money it needs to keep running and try to force thsoe taxes from you. Really, to not pay your taxes is not something that an individual can really do, they need their company to be on their side, because the governemt will just garnish your wages to get the money and the only way to stop that (without quiting your job) is to have your employer tell the government that they are not going to garnish wages.

I think the real way to overthrow the government would be through winning over the police, so that when the government tells the police to do something (like arrest all those people not paying taxes), the police say no. Similar to how in Egypt, Mubarak told the police to shoot people that violated the curfew laws, and they said "F you, we're not enforcing that."

And you're definately not going to win over the police with guns, you're only going to provoke the military, which has bigger guns.

I think the fact that every household has guns or has access to guns (maybe because I live in the midwest I assume everyone else has gun safes in their basement) just means if there ever was some reason to fight it would become attrition warfare. The army or police or whoever would have to cover a lot of ground kill a lot of armed people.

Well, if you're the one trying to over throw the government, then that means you're not going to be couped up in your house (as the police will just lay siege and wait for you to starve), you'll have to be active.

Also, unless the people mass together in a rebellion, then they don't really stand a chance. If you and 10,000,000 other people all stop paying taxes, but each hide out in your own home, you're gonna lose, badly. The police will be able to take you out one at a time without worrying about being over powered (1 man with a rifle vs 20 swat team members).

At 3/25/2011 3:11:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:why does anyone in the government need lethal weapons? We have the technology to non-harmfully subdue anyone they would need to.

I've been brought down by police non-harmfully before; you aren't going to be able to understand the full moral dynamic of police interactions until you have had your humanity stripped from you. I would give police rocket-launchers before I'd give them pepper spray, clubs, and tasers; the latter are just that much easier to use liberally. The more our weapons evolve and become civilized the more insidious their application becomes.

That's a really interesting point, and i never looked at it that way before.

As for the 2nd amendment, and it's purpose. It is a direct reflection of the experience during the revolution, and a village mustering a militia for it's defense and to allow a last hope against tyranny. Although i love the sentiment it definitely seems anachronistic in our present society. I really don't know how an effective rebellion could be waged against our federal government, but i am thinking that it wouldn't be through guns. What would happen if everyone stopped paying their taxes?

The government would print the money it needs to keep running and try to force thsoe taxes from you. Really, to not pay your taxes is not something that an individual can really do, they need their company to be on their side, because the governemt will just garnish your wages to get the money and the only way to stop that (without quiting your job) is to have your employer tell the government that they are not going to garnish wages.

I think the real way to overthrow the government would be through winning over the police, so that when the government tells the police to do something (like arrest all those people not paying taxes), the police say no. Similar to how in Egypt, Mubarak told the police to shoot people that violated the curfew laws, and they said "F you, we're not enforcing that."

And you're definately not going to win over the police with guns, you're only going to provoke the military, which has bigger guns.

I think the fact that every household has guns or has access to guns (maybe because I live in the midwest I assume everyone else has gun safes in their basement) just means if there ever was some reason to fight it would become attrition warfare. The army or police or whoever would have to cover a lot of ground kill a lot of armed people.

Well, if you're the one trying to over throw the government, then that means you're not going to be couped up in your house (as the police will just lay siege and wait for you to starve), you'll have to be active.

Also, unless the people mass together in a rebellion, then they don't really stand a chance. If you and 10,000,000 other people all stop paying taxes, but each hide out in your own home, you're gonna lose, badly. The police will be able to take you out one at a time without worrying about being over powered (1 man with a rifle vs 20 swat team members).

And then what? Take out, kill, lock up all the tax payers isn't a great plan.

At 3/25/2011 3:11:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:why does anyone in the government need lethal weapons? We have the technology to non-harmfully subdue anyone they would need to.

I've been brought down by police non-harmfully before; you aren't going to be able to understand the full moral dynamic of police interactions until you have had your humanity stripped from you. I would give police rocket-launchers before I'd give them pepper spray, clubs, and tasers; the latter are just that much easier to use liberally. The more our weapons evolve and become civilized the more insidious their application becomes.

That's a really interesting point, and i never looked at it that way before.

As for the 2nd amendment, and it's purpose. It is a direct reflection of the experience during the revolution, and a village mustering a militia for it's defense and to allow a last hope against tyranny. Although i love the sentiment it definitely seems anachronistic in our present society. I really don't know how an effective rebellion could be waged against our federal government, but i am thinking that it wouldn't be through guns. What would happen if everyone stopped paying their taxes?

The government would print the money it needs to keep running and try to force thsoe taxes from you. Really, to not pay your taxes is not something that an individual can really do, they need their company to be on their side, because the governemt will just garnish your wages to get the money and the only way to stop that (without quiting your job) is to have your employer tell the government that they are not going to garnish wages.

I think the real way to overthrow the government would be through winning over the police, so that when the government tells the police to do something (like arrest all those people not paying taxes), the police say no. Similar to how in Egypt, Mubarak told the police to shoot people that violated the curfew laws, and they said "F you, we're not enforcing that."

And you're definately not going to win over the police with guns, you're only going to provoke the military, which has bigger guns.

I think the fact that every household has guns or has access to guns (maybe because I live in the midwest I assume everyone else has gun safes in their basement) just means if there ever was some reason to fight it would become attrition warfare. The army or police or whoever would have to cover a lot of ground kill a lot of armed people.

Well, if you're the one trying to over throw the government, then that means you're not going to be couped up in your house (as the police will just lay siege and wait for you to starve), you'll have to be active.

Also, unless the people mass together in a rebellion, then they don't really stand a chance. If you and 10,000,000 other people all stop paying taxes, but each hide out in your own home, you're gonna lose, badly. The police will be able to take you out one at a time without worrying about being over powered (1 man with a rifle vs 20 swat team members).

I was simply painting a broad picture of what they would be up against, I don't know how you narrowed it down to me in my basement with a bolt action rifle waiting for swat (which how prevalent do you think SWAT is by the way?).

"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

The government would print the money it needs to keep running and try to force thsoe taxes from you. Really, to not pay your taxes is not something that an individual can really do, they need their company to be on their side, because the governemt will just garnish your wages to get the money and the only way to stop that (without quiting your job) is to have your employer tell the government that they are not going to garnish wages.

I think the real way to overthrow the government would be through winning over the police, so that when the government tells the police to do something (like arrest all those people not paying taxes), the police say no. Similar to how in Egypt, Mubarak told the police to shoot people that violated the curfew laws, and they said "F you, we're not enforcing that."

And you're definitely not going to win over the police with guns, you're only going to provoke the military, which has bigger guns.

Not paying your taxes is not really an option if you still hold American money. Inflation from printing money is a mandatory flat tax on everyone that has money.

Crying about how much the Trump wall is going to cost is like a heroin addict complaining about how much the needles cost.

The government would print the money it needs to keep running and try to force thsoe taxes from you. Really, to not pay your taxes is not something that an individual can really do, they need their company to be on their side, because the governemt will just garnish your wages to get the money and the only way to stop that (without quiting your job) is to have your employer tell the government that they are not going to garnish wages.

I think the real way to overthrow the government would be through winning over the police, so that when the government tells the police to do something (like arrest all those people not paying taxes), the police say no. Similar to how in Egypt, Mubarak told the police to shoot people that violated the curfew laws, and they said "F you, we're not enforcing that."

And you're definitely not going to win over the police with guns, you're only going to provoke the military, which has bigger guns.

Not paying your taxes is not really an option if you still hold American money. Inflation from printing money is a mandatory flat tax on everyone that has money.

We'd have to start printing currently "illegal" private currencies backed by silver and gold, that would be a shame, no Federal Reserve to impose the tax that is inflation and there would be no one to bail out failed companies.

"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

The government would print the money it needs to keep running and try to force thsoe taxes from you. Really, to not pay your taxes is not something that an individual can really do, they need their company to be on their side, because the governemt will just garnish your wages to get the money and the only way to stop that (without quiting your job) is to have your employer tell the government that they are not going to garnish wages.

I think the real way to overthrow the government would be through winning over the police, so that when the government tells the police to do something (like arrest all those people not paying taxes), the police say no. Similar to how in Egypt, Mubarak told the police to shoot people that violated the curfew laws, and they said "F you, we're not enforcing that."

And you're definitely not going to win over the police with guns, you're only going to provoke the military, which has bigger guns.

Not paying your taxes is not really an option if you still hold American money. Inflation from printing money is a mandatory flat tax on everyone that has money.

We'd have to start printing currently "illegal" private currencies backed by silver and gold, that would be a shame, no Federal Reserve to impose the tax that is inflation and there would be no one to bail out failed companies.

Ahem, That would be civil war...

Crying about how much the Trump wall is going to cost is like a heroin addict complaining about how much the needles cost.

why does anyone in the government need lethal weapons? We have the technology to non-harmfully subdue anyone they would need to.

I'm not sure I agree, we have tasers which have limited range and then something like a shotgun with bean bag rounds wouldn't be practical to carry all the time.Correct me if I'm wrong however.

A simple net could have subdued the hollywood shooters. Also, tasers are no longer short range, we have taser rounds that can be shot from shotguns. We may also implement gas. There's a million different things which are just as effective without being lethal.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the (proper) purpose of the police here. You compare with the Death Penalty (which I'm against, btw.). By doing so, you are glossing over the distinction between, on the one hand, the police, who serve to protect the public from lawbreakers, and to turn over those supected of having broken the law to - and this is on the other hand: - the justice system, i.e. courts, prisons etc.

The death penalty is one among several means of punishment at the latter's disposal, to punish those who have been proven guilty (the possibility of error here is my main argument against the death penalty). The police have nothing whatever to do with that, except superficially. Their job is to enforce the law immediately, not in hindsight like the justice system, to protect, to end dangerous situations, not to judge.

Thus, it essential that they have at their disposal the means to trump any reasonably expected resistance. (If that sounds oppressive to you, remember that government's defining characteristic is the legal monopoly on coercive force. Of course, you could argue against that, but as you said, we're assuming that government is legitimate.) I don't suppose anybody would argue that it is unreasonable for police to expect deadly force against themselves or bystanders.

The Second Amendment's primary purpose is simply to guarantee a natural right against authoritarian interference. Secondarily, it guarantees in part the right to self-defense, whether against individuals or against oppressive government.

"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)

why does anyone in the government need lethal weapons? We have the technology to non-harmfully subdue anyone they would need to.

I'm not sure I agree, we have tasers which have limited range and then something like a shotgun with bean bag rounds wouldn't be practical to carry all the time.Correct me if I'm wrong however.

A simple net could have subdued the hollywood shooters. Also, tasers are no longer short range, we have taser rounds that can be shot from shotguns. We may also implement gas. There's a million different things which are just as effective without being lethal.

A net? I was taking you seriously for a second

"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

Leaving war out of the question and also leaving out whether government is even legitimate, just for the moment, why does anyone in the government need lethal weapons? We have the technology to non-harmfully subdue anyone they would need to.

Tasers have limited range, and as pointed out above me, nets are stupid. Attempting to subdue deadly force with nonlethal force is exceedingly risky in many scenarios.

Also, secondary question for 2nd amendment supporters. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is often sighted as being the last hope against tyranny. Would you continue to see a use for the 2nd amendment if the government did not own firearms itself?

Yes. Someone would have to replace the government, as it is obviously incompetent. ^_^.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

why does anyone in the government need lethal weapons? We have the technology to non-harmfully subdue anyone they would need to.

I'm not sure I agree, we have tasers which have limited range and then something like a shotgun with bean bag rounds wouldn't be practical to carry all the time.Correct me if I'm wrong however.

A simple net could have subdued the hollywood shooters. Also, tasers are no longer short range, we have taser rounds that can be shot from shotguns. We may also implement gas. There's a million different things which are just as effective without being lethal.